Dammit. "Its entirety", not "It's".

With searchable transcripts, all one will have to do is search out the video in it's entirety to get full context and debunk any deceit through selective editing. More information is usually a good thing.

Of the two drugs you mentioned, one is prescribed by a doctor and highly addictive, the other is neither prescribed nor addictive. Big difference.

Kind of different:

* Private, versus public sector
* FOI request versus Joe Shareholder's request

But, if it's a case of litigation, corporate emails are subject to subpoena.

27 or so years its senior. Wow, pretty neat, huh? Also, my Galaxy S2 is waaaaay faster than my Atari 800.

And it's solved by education and control

Whose control? I suspect this is part of what the parent was getting at. BTW, I'll bet the British would have loved to have such education and control.

His exact words: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

My exact response above: "Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business." If you want to label this "nutjobbery", so be it. Your words. I call it a simple, but consistent overestimation of the roll and importance of government in the lives of Americans. The video I posted above parallels this sentiment. Sorry you didn't notice.

1. Nice try with the strawman. I've asserted that Obama views government as the great provider. I did not call him a nutjob.
2. You can't apply Occam's razor until you've eliminated my assertion as a possibility, with your belief as the sole remainder.

See here, a snippet from a video played at the DNC tonight. "The government is the only thing we all belong to. Really? How about just a nation of people, living in sovereign states. How about the human race? We're all (or, at least, we ought to be) freedom loving people, and we certainly do not belong to the government. Quite telling.

You're making the assumption that you stand on the veritable high ground with your interpretation and application of context. You've provided nothing to fortify your position, other than repetition of the Democrats' "what he meant to say was..." back pedaling. I've argued on the evaluation of his policies. This is not the narrowest literal meaning -- it's matching the talk to the walk.

There is no irony here. I've used his own words as an accurate critique of his own actions.
I was initially scolded that "he didn't say that." I proved that he did say it, and was then accused of taking his words out of context. I acknowledged context, but as consistent with my view of his meaning. Now, I'm told my view is wrong, based on... something.

In summary: he did say it; being critical of his words is well within the scope of context; his context is consistent with his policies.

the racist party...

Thank you for making my point for me.

Wow, that's a stretch. That...that's actual contortion right there. You had to limber up good for that one.

With all due respect to context, Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business. He, instead, places the sole focus and credit on the roll of the government in providing infrastructure and public education. Those of use who take issue with his statement see this great infrastructure as an enabler, but not an acting agent in building a successful company. If the opposite were true, we'd all be CEOs.

I'm quite comfortable with my interpretation of his words. It's consistent with his view of government as the great provider.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that.".

Somebody who looks and sounds a hell of a lot like Obama said it on July 13, 2012.

Ha! Wanting to keep money you've earned is greedy. YOUR MONEY. I suppose you don't believe in property ownership either.

In the last four years, the words "racist" and "extremist" have lost all meaning -- being thrown about carelessly by one side of the aisle in futile attempt to belittle the opposition. Now, "greed" is also taking on new meaning: Unwillingness to surrender personal wealth to the state for re-appropriation. But, it's ok, because hey... you didn't build that.